Art. 277 [now Art. 294] of the Labor Code provides the manner of termination of employment, thus:

“xxx

Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment. Any decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer.”

Accordingly, the implementing rule of the aforesaid provision states:

SEC. 2. Standards of due process; requirements of notice.––In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed:

1. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:

(a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side.

(b) A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against him.

(c) A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.

In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employee’s last known address.

To clarify, the following should be considered in terminating the services of employees:

(1) The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period. “Reasonable opportunity” under the Omnibus Rules means every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense.15 This should be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar

days from receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against the complaint. Moreover, in order to enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation and defenses, the notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employees. A general description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated and/or which among the grounds under Art. 282 [now Art. 297] is being charged against the employees.

(2) After serving the first notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to: (1) explain and clarify their defenses to the charge against them; (2) present evidence in support of their defenses; and (3) rebut the evidence presented against them by the management. During the hearing or conference, the employees are given the chance to defend themselves personally, with the assistance of a representative or counsel of their choice. Moreover, this conference or hearing could be used by the parties as an opportunity to come to an amicable settlement.

(3) After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment.

As to whether or not the company should conduct a hearing or conference prior to dismissal, the Supreme Court held in the case of Perez vs. PT&T (G.R. NO. 152048 : April 7, 2009]), that:

The following are the guiding principles in connection with the hearing requirement in dismissal cases:

(a) “ample opportunity to be heard” means any meaningful opportunity (verbal or written) given to the employee to answer the charges against him and submit evidence in support of his defense, whether in a hearing, conference or some other fair, just and reasonable way.

(b) a formal hearing or conference becomes mandatory only when requested by the employee in writing or substantial evidentiary disputes exist or a company rule or practice requires it, or when similar circumstances justify it.

(c) the “ample opportunity to be heard” standard in the Labor Code prevails over the “hearing or conference” requirement in the implementing rules and regulations.

Below is a sample script or guide to follow in conducting a hearing / conference on the part of HR Practitioner or Business Owner (in Filipino). The sample is about a case involving moonlighting:

Preliminaries:

Good morning!

Maraming Salamat sa pagdalo sa hearing/conference na ito. Ang proceeding ay isang conference para kay _______________________________, na sumasailalim sa imbestigasyon hinggil sa moonlighting o pagkakaroon ng ibang employer habang siya ay empleyado ng kompanyang ito.

Ang pagdinig na ito ay pagkakataon sa iniimbestigahan upang lalo pang maipaliwanag ang kanyang panig. Hindi ito korte para magpatagisan ng argumento kundi upang ihayag ang katotohanan. Pinaiiral natin ang respeto sa isa’t-isa.

Panatilihin nating maayos, payapa at matiwasay ang proseso. Kapag nagkaroon ng hindi magandang pangyayari ang proseso ay isususpinde o hindi na itutuloy kung hinihiling ng pagkakataon.

Ayon sa talaan ng attendance sheet, ang mga dumalo sa pagdinig na ito ay sina:

X, who represents HR

Y, who represents the management

Z, who is the employee being charged

AA, is Z’s support person

Ang tanong ay dapat sagutin ng empleyado. Kung ang sagot ay oo dapat banggitin ito at hindi lamang ang pag-tango. Kung hindi ang sagot dapat din banggitin at hindi sapat ang pag-iling lamang.

Bilang panuntunan sa hearing/conference, ang empleyadong iniimbestigahan lamang ang maaring sumagot sa mga tanong. Hindi maaring sumagot ang kanyang support person. Ang support person ay maaring magbigay ng payo sa pribadong paraan subalit hindi siya maaring sumagot ng tanong para sa empleyado.

Hindi maaring magresolba ng anumang objection ang hearing officer. Maari nya lamang isulat ang anumang objections ngunit hindi ito dahilan para hindi sagutin ang tanong.

Ang pagdinig ay naka-rekord at mayroong Minutes na gagawin.

1. Ms. ______________________, makikita sa record na natanggap mo ang NTE noong ____________, 202__, tama ba?

2. Nagsumite ka rin ng iyong written reply, tama ba?

3. Ikaw ay pinagpapaliwanag sa diumano’y pag-moonlighting o pagkakaroon ng iba pang employer maliban sa Company X.

4. Maari mo bang banggitin ang pangalan ng employer na pinasukan mo na pinagsabay mo sa Company X?

5. Kailan ka pa nagsimula sa kompanya na ‘yan? Alam ba ng may-ari na ikaw ay may trabaho sa Company X?

6. Anong araw ang pasok mo sa employer na yan at anong oras?

7. Mga Gaano karami ang inaasikaso mong Kliyente sa Competitor, Inc. sa isang araw?

8. Hanggang sa pagakakataong ito nanatili ka bang namamasukan sa Competitor, Inc. na ‘yan?

9. Ano ang iyong ginagawa o function sa Competitor, Inc.?

10. May naghimok ba sa ‘yo na pumasok sa Competitor, Inc. kasabay ng employment mo sa Company X? Kung meron, sino?

11. Hanggang kelan mo balak na mamamasukan sa Competitor, Inc.?

Iyon lamang ang mga katanungan.

Ang lupon na ito ay susumite ng report sa pamunuan hinggil sa resulta ng pagdinig. Walang kapangyarihan ang lupon na ito upang magbigay ng pagpapasya. Ang rekomendasyon ay isusumite upang pag-aralan ng pamunuan.

Kung mayroon ka pang nais isumite, binibigyan ka ng hanggang tatlong araw para ibigay sa HR.

Muli, maraming Salamat at magandang araw.

See here the procedure to observe when the employee refuses to receive employer’s notice.

In addition, the company should send another copy by registered mail and keep the registry receipt for future reference.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements

In the case of Distribution & Control Products, Inc. vs. Santos, G.R. No. 212616, July 10, 2017 the Supreme Court (SC) held that the settled rule is that in termination proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing.

The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him.

The requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted.

In Unilever Philippines, Inc. vs. Rivera, the SC laid down the guidelines on how to comply with procedural due process in terminating an employee, to wit:

(1) The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period. “Reasonable opportunity” under the Omnibus Rules means every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense. This should be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will

raise against the complaint. Moreover, in order to enable the employees to intelligently prepare their explanation and defenses, the notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employees. A general description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated and/or which among the grounds under Art. 282 is being charged against the employees.

(2) After serving the first notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to: (1) explain and clarify their defenses to the charge against them; (2) present evidence in support of their defenses; and (3) rebut the evidence presented against them by the management. During the hearing or conference, the employees are given the chance to defend themselves personally, with the assistance of a representative or counsel of their choice. Moreover, this conference or hearing could be used by the parties as an opportunity to come to an amicable settlement.

(3) After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment.

Considering that the burden of proving compliance with the procedural requirements lies with the employer, optimum effort should be exerted to obtain proof of compliance.

Hence, in service of the NTE, the employer has to ensure that it has proof that it was received by the employee. The usual approach is directing the employee to receive his copy of the NTE and to affix his signature in the company’s copy to prove receipt.

However, there have been cases where the employee refuses to receive the NTE. In this case, the company should observe the procedure in indicating refusal to receive.

See here the procedure to observe when the employee refuses to receive employer’s notice.

In addition, the company should send another copy by registered mail and keep the registry receipt for future reference.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements

As a general rule, this ground for termination requires the concurrence of “gross” and “habitual.”

In short, for negligence to be a proper ground for termination, it must not only be gross but must be both “gross and habitual” in character to justify depriving an employee of his means of livelihood.

Simple negligence is not a ground for dismissal of an employee.

A single or an isolated act of negligence which is not “gross and habitual” in nature will not justify termination of services.

Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one’s duties, while habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. The single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.

“Gross negligence” means an absence of that diligence that an ordinarily prudent man would use in his own affairs. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.

“Habitual negligence” implies repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.

Negligence cannot be presumed. Once it is alleged, it must be supported by facts or evidence. An employer cannot conclude without proof that an employee is negligent of his duties.

Allegation of negligence must be supported by substantial evidence. Bare claim that an employee is negligent without proof of any particular instance cannot be made as basis to dismiss an employee.

The issue of whether a party is negligent is a question of fact.

In a case where the employer charges an employee with habitual tardiness and absenteeism but the documents allegedly supporting the attendance violation were not signed and mere computer printouts, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:

“From the foregoing, there are serious doubts in the evidence on record as to the factual basis of the charges against petitioner. These doubts shall be resolved in her favor in line with the policy under the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. The consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. [Dizon v. NLRC, 180 SCRA 52 (1989)]. Not having satisfied its burden of proof, we conclude that the employer dis- missed the petitioner without any just cause. Hence, the termination is illegal.”

How to determine whether an employee is negligent?

It is negligence characterized by want of even a slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as others persons may be affected.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements

“Dismissible offense” means violation of company rules where the penalty is dismissal from service. Under the law and rules, this requires observance of procedural due process which is a notice and a hearing.

To summarize, the steps to dismiss an employee where there is a just cause are as follows:

Step 1. Notice to explain (first notice).—The common line used in this case is:

“Please explain within five (5) calendar days57 from receipt of this notice why no disciplinary action should be taken against you for the following acts…”

Step 2. Hearing or conference.—The employee must be informed that he may bring along a

representative or a lawyer. Sample phrase:

“In relation to the notice to explain sent to you on ______ which you received on _________, you are hereby being invited to a hearing/conference to be held on December ___ 2014, at Never Ending Floor, Skyhigh Bldg., Ayala Ave., Makati, at 8:00 a.m. You may bring with you your counsel or support person, if you desire.

Failure on your part to attend the hearing/conference shall be deemed as waiver of your right to due process. Please be guided accordingly.”

Step 3. Notice of dismissal (second and final notice)

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements

After evaluating the pieces of evidence, testimony of witnesses, reply of the employee and result of the hearing/conference, the employer now makes his final assessment. If he thinks grounds have been established to justify the dismissal, he should issue the final notice of termination or the second notice.

The question is when should the termination take effect? Should the employer observe the 30-day period before making the dismissal effective? Not necessarily. The employer may even make the dismissal effective immediately upon receipt by the employee of the second and final notice.

As already mentioned, the procedure however is different if the ground for termination is the authorized cause (redundancy, retrenchment, etc.), or those grounds expressly provided under Article 298 of the Labor Code, as amended. Unlike in Article 297 where the employee is at fault, the notices required in Article 298 are as follows:

1. Notice to the employee at least 30 days before the effectivity date of his redundancy, retrenchment, etc.; and
2. Notice to the DOLE at least 30 days before the effectivity date of the employee’s redundancy, retrenchment, etc. using the DOLE-prescribed re- ports and form.

Once the above requisites have been complied with, the dismissal is already on solid ground. However, this does not mean that the employee cannot challenge his dismissal.

The employer’s inherent right to discipline is subject to reasonable regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power.

The employer’s rules cannot preclude the State from inquiring whether the strict and rigid application or interpretation thereof would be harsh to the employee.

The dismissed or terminated employee has a right to contest his dismissal in labor court.

During the hearing or conference, the employees are given the chance to defend themselves personally, with the assistance of a representative or counsel of their choice. Moreover, this conference or hearing could be used by the parties as an opportunity to come to an amicable settlement.

It is better if before the hearing, the employee should be apprised in writing of the conference stating the time, date, place and the fact that he could bring along his counsel or support person if he so desires.

What if despite such notice the employee refused or did not attend the hearing/conference? Does that mean failure to accord hearing?

No, since the employee was already given an opportunity to such hearing/conference by sending an invitation to him. If he refused to participate despite due notice, that is not the fault of the employer. It

is best practice for employers to have an attendance sheet or record of such meeting showing the persons who are supposed to attend with their signature beside their name.

It would appear that in such attendance record the space corresponding the name of the employee who failed or refused to participate despite due notice would bear no signature. This can be used as evidence to prove that ample opportunity was given to the worker. It is not required that an actual hearing should occur as long as ample opportunity was given.

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

In a regular trial court procedure, the parties present evidence in the manner provided by the Rules of Court, except in certain instances where these requirements are not mandatory. The parties are subjected to direct, cross, re-direct and re-cross examinations. The technical rules of evidence apply in regular procedure but not strictly in labor cases, subject to certain exceptions.

All the more that such kind of court jostle does not govern the hearing or conference initiated by the employer for the dismissal of the employee.

Notice and hearing in termination cases do not connote full adversarial proceedings as elucidated in numerous cases decided by the court. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side.

In the case of IBM Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC, the Court held that ample opportunity means every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employee to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense.

Basically, an NTE apprises the employee about the offense being charged. In case of termination, the notices shall be served on the employee’s last known address. This is usually found in the HR databases or 201 file. It is a good practice to update these records or to require employees to provide changes in their personal information.

As a good practice, it is suggested that employers should update the 201 file by requiring employees to update their records periodically especially their place of residence. There are instances wherein employees change residence without informing HR and in effect not updating the 201 file. In such case, whenever a notice is sent to them they would claim that they did not receive it because it was sent to the wrong address.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements

For example, the company may issue a notice every six months to employees asking them to update their personal information. Attached to such notice is the form containing entries related to such

information including the employee’s address. The employer may issue a warning that failure of the employee to fill out the form and submit to HR within the prescribed period it shall be deemed that the employee is retaining his record on file.

The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of procedural due process, and neither of these elements can be eliminated without running afoul of the constitutional guarantee. In dismissing employees, the employer must furnish them the two written notices.

Read more on notices required in employee dismissal here.

According to C.A. Azucena, the implementing Rules of Book V prescribe the standards of due process, varying according to the cause of the termination.

He said that in all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed:

For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:

1. A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reason- able opportunity within which to explain his side;
2. A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, pre- sent his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and
3. A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termina tion.

In case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the employee’s last known address.

1. For termination of employment based on authorized causes defined in Article 298 of the Labor Code, the requirements of due process shall be deemed complied with upon service of a written notice to the employee and the appropriate Regional Office of the Department at least thirty days before the effectivity of the termination, specifying the ground or grounds for termination.

III. If the termination is brought about by the completion of the contract or phase thereof, no prior no- tice is required. If the termination is brought about by the failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employer in the case of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served the employee within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of twin notices must be met.

Twin requirements refer to Notice to Explain (NTE), Notice of Dismissal, and an administrative Hearing / Conference. This differs from the two-notice rule which pertains to the NTE and the final Notice of Dismissal.

Substantive due process refers to the ground for dis- missal. It is the justification, the reason or the “why” aspect. For example, under Article 297 of the Labor Code, as amended, an employee may be dismissed for theft, fraud or gross and habitual neglect of duty.

While in Article 298, an employee may be terminated due to closure of establishment, redundancy or retrenchment.

The just cause and authorized cause constitute the substantive due process aspect. The procedure pertains to the manner of executing the discipline. The law requires observance of procedural due process aspect as well. This is the “how” aspect where the notice requirement mentioned earlier belongs.

Why is there a need for due process?

Under Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

These essential requirements of due process were laid down in the landmark case of Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. In this case, The SC held that the fact, however, there are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character. Thus, to paraphrase the essence of its findings:

(1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. The liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play.’

(2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. The right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding duty on the part of the board to consider it, is vain. Such right is conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

(3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached.

(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be ‘substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence.

(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the

evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them.

(6) The tribunal therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.

In the case of JR Hauling Services vs. Solamo (G.R. No. 214294, September 30, 2020), the employees were charged of selling the broilers and broiler crates without the authority of the owner.

In response to the administrative charge, the employees contend that they were drivers/helpers and not holders of managerial or supervisory positions. Thus, they were allegedly not liable for loss of trust and confidence.

The Supreme Court (SC) held that loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal of employees covers employees occupying a position of trust who are proven to have breached the trust and confidence reposed on them.

In upholding the dismissal of employees the SC held that even on the premise that complaining employees were not occupying managerial or supervisory positions, they were, undoubtedly, holding positions of responsibility. As to their transgressions i.e., the unauthorized sale of broilers and broiler crates, the same are clearly work-related as they would not have been able to perpetrate the same were it not for their positions as drivers/helpers of JR Hauling.

In fine, the SC held that there is just cause for their dismissal from the service.

However, the SC ruled against the company as regards the due process of dismissal.

The SC held that the Implementing Rules in relation to Article 297 of the Labor Code provides for the procedure that must be observed in order to comply with the required procedural due process in dismissal cases, to wit:

1. a) A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side.
2. b) A written notice of termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination.

The company and its officers admit that no written notice to explain and written notice of termination were served upon employees. Their defense, however, is premised on their assertion that it was the employees themselves which prevented JR Hauling from serving upon them the written notices when they failed to report for work after they were confronted by management of their alleged transgressions. We are not persuaded.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

At the outset, the employees involved were adamant in their pleadings before the LA and the NLRC that JR Hauling dismissed them from employment without notice and hearing and/or investigation when management allegedly displayed their pictures at the gate and barred them from entering the company premises. Interestingly, the management failed to categorically deny these allegations. It is worth noting that Section 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, which supplements the NLRC Rules of Procedure, provides that allegations which are not specifically denied are deemed admitted.

Even on the premise that it was the respondents who refused to report for work, the same does not exculpate the management from observing the basic principles of due process before the employees can be dismissed from employment.

To be clear, if the management team were adamant to give the employees the opportunity to explain their side and refute the accusations made against them, they should have served the notices personally to respondents, or where their whereabouts are unknown, such as in this case, by courier or registered

mail at their last known addresses indicated in their employee file maintained or in the possession of JR Hauling. This, however, the management failed to do.

In light of the above premises, there being just cause for the dismissal but considering the management’s non-compliance with the procedural requisites in terminating the employees’ employment, the SC held that the latter are entitled to nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00 each in line with existing jurisprudence.